Covered stents versus uncovered stents for unresectable malignant biliary strictures: A meta-analysis

Ming Yu Chen, Jia Wei Lin, He Pan Zhu, Bin Zhang, Guang Yi Jiang, Pei Jian Yan, Xiu Jun Cai

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim. To summarize the covered or uncovered SEMS for treatment of unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction, comparing the stent patency, patient survival, and incidence of adverse events between the two SEMSs. Methods. The meta-analysis search was performed independently by two of the authors, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, and Cochrane databases on all studies between 2010 and 2015. Pooled effect was calculated using either the fixed or the random effects model. Results. Statistics shows that there is no difference between SEMSs in the hazard ratio for patient survival (HR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.92-1.17; P=0.55) and stent patency (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.30, P=0.5). However, incidence of adverse events (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.97, P=0.03) showed significant different results in the covered SEMS, with dysfunctions events (OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.00, P=0.05) playing a more important role than complications (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.30, P=0.50). Conclusions. Covered SEMS group had lower incidence of adverse events. There is no significant difference in dysfunctions, but covered SEMS trends to be better, with no difference in stent patency, patient survival, and complications.

Original languageEnglish
Article number6408067
JournalBioMed Research International
Volume2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Stents
Meta-Analysis
Pathologic Constriction
Survival
Incidence
MEDLINE
Hazards
Statistics
Databases
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Immunology and Microbiology(all)

Cite this

Covered stents versus uncovered stents for unresectable malignant biliary strictures : A meta-analysis. / Chen, Ming Yu; Lin, Jia Wei; Zhu, He Pan; Zhang, Bin; Jiang, Guang Yi; Yan, Pei Jian; Cai, Xiu Jun.

In: BioMed Research International, Vol. 2016, 6408067, 01.01.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Chen, Ming Yu ; Lin, Jia Wei ; Zhu, He Pan ; Zhang, Bin ; Jiang, Guang Yi ; Yan, Pei Jian ; Cai, Xiu Jun. / Covered stents versus uncovered stents for unresectable malignant biliary strictures : A meta-analysis. In: BioMed Research International. 2016 ; Vol. 2016.
@article{09555da668ee4d4998b883e306a87bad,
title = "Covered stents versus uncovered stents for unresectable malignant biliary strictures: A meta-analysis",
abstract = "Aim. To summarize the covered or uncovered SEMS for treatment of unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction, comparing the stent patency, patient survival, and incidence of adverse events between the two SEMSs. Methods. The meta-analysis search was performed independently by two of the authors, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, and Cochrane databases on all studies between 2010 and 2015. Pooled effect was calculated using either the fixed or the random effects model. Results. Statistics shows that there is no difference between SEMSs in the hazard ratio for patient survival (HR 1.04; 95{\%} CI, 0.92-1.17; P=0.55) and stent patency (HR 0.87, 95{\%} CI: 0.58 to 1.30, P=0.5). However, incidence of adverse events (OR: 0.74, 95{\%} CI: 0.57 to 0.97, P=0.03) showed significant different results in the covered SEMS, with dysfunctions events (OR: 0.75, 95{\%} CI: 0.56 to 1.00, P=0.05) playing a more important role than complications (OR: 0.87, 95{\%} CI: 0.58 to 1.30, P=0.50). Conclusions. Covered SEMS group had lower incidence of adverse events. There is no significant difference in dysfunctions, but covered SEMS trends to be better, with no difference in stent patency, patient survival, and complications.",
author = "Chen, {Ming Yu} and Lin, {Jia Wei} and Zhu, {He Pan} and Bin Zhang and Jiang, {Guang Yi} and Yan, {Pei Jian} and Cai, {Xiu Jun}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1155/2016/6408067",
language = "English",
volume = "2016",
journal = "BioMed Research International",
issn = "2314-6133",
publisher = "Hindawi Publishing Corporation",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Covered stents versus uncovered stents for unresectable malignant biliary strictures

T2 - A meta-analysis

AU - Chen, Ming Yu

AU - Lin, Jia Wei

AU - Zhu, He Pan

AU - Zhang, Bin

AU - Jiang, Guang Yi

AU - Yan, Pei Jian

AU - Cai, Xiu Jun

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Aim. To summarize the covered or uncovered SEMS for treatment of unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction, comparing the stent patency, patient survival, and incidence of adverse events between the two SEMSs. Methods. The meta-analysis search was performed independently by two of the authors, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, and Cochrane databases on all studies between 2010 and 2015. Pooled effect was calculated using either the fixed or the random effects model. Results. Statistics shows that there is no difference between SEMSs in the hazard ratio for patient survival (HR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.92-1.17; P=0.55) and stent patency (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.30, P=0.5). However, incidence of adverse events (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.97, P=0.03) showed significant different results in the covered SEMS, with dysfunctions events (OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.00, P=0.05) playing a more important role than complications (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.30, P=0.50). Conclusions. Covered SEMS group had lower incidence of adverse events. There is no significant difference in dysfunctions, but covered SEMS trends to be better, with no difference in stent patency, patient survival, and complications.

AB - Aim. To summarize the covered or uncovered SEMS for treatment of unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction, comparing the stent patency, patient survival, and incidence of adverse events between the two SEMSs. Methods. The meta-analysis search was performed independently by two of the authors, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, and Cochrane databases on all studies between 2010 and 2015. Pooled effect was calculated using either the fixed or the random effects model. Results. Statistics shows that there is no difference between SEMSs in the hazard ratio for patient survival (HR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.92-1.17; P=0.55) and stent patency (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.30, P=0.5). However, incidence of adverse events (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.97, P=0.03) showed significant different results in the covered SEMS, with dysfunctions events (OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.00, P=0.05) playing a more important role than complications (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.30, P=0.50). Conclusions. Covered SEMS group had lower incidence of adverse events. There is no significant difference in dysfunctions, but covered SEMS trends to be better, with no difference in stent patency, patient survival, and complications.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962081987&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84962081987&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1155/2016/6408067

DO - 10.1155/2016/6408067

M3 - Review article

C2 - 27051667

AN - SCOPUS:84962081987

VL - 2016

JO - BioMed Research International

JF - BioMed Research International

SN - 2314-6133

M1 - 6408067

ER -